On 18/05/2021 19.44, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 5/18/21 6:43 AM, Peter Georg wrote: >> >> So in case there is any way to move this SIG proposal forward, or some >> other more suitable way (under the umbrella of centos-plus or some >> other SIG?) to provide such kmod packages, please let me know. > > I'm not certain if this is what you are asking, but the way forward with > the SIG proposal is to write a SIG proposal, and bring it to the Board > of Directors. Indeed it was not what I was initially asking for. However this answer of yours, and the one to redbaronbrowser later, caused me to take a step back re-think about how to approach this: The possible SIG named "Stream Kernel SIG" discussed in this topic here has been initially brought up by redbaronbrowser and included 4 goals. I later proposed to add building kmods as a fifth goal. redbaronbrowser described his idea of a possible SIG in the inital post. However I'm not sure this qualifies as a proposal. In addition, as you mentioned, there are some open questions. I think these questions are mostly related to the initial goals #1, #3, and #4. IMHO some of these goals are not feasible within the scope of a SIG. Hence I'm now thinking about splitting the fifth goal from this "Stream Kernel SIG" and write a proposal for a "kmods" SIG only containing this particular goal. Whether one wants to add the second goal of redbaronbrowser's initial idea - building the CentOS Plus kernel - is a different question and imo up to the current devolpers/maintainers of kernel-plus. This can be discussed later. Before I start writing a proposal for a "kmods SIG": Does this make sense to you? > The process is here: > https://wiki.centos.org/SIGGuide#SIGGuide.2FSIGProcess.Proposal > > A template is here: > https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/ProposalTemplate > > A *great* example is here: > https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Hyperscale >